5 ms·

While I agree with them about the blanket ban on alternative browser engines on iOS, when it comes to desktop, Microsoft did anti-competitive shenanigans back i

While I agree with them about the blanket ban on alternative browser engines on iOS, when it comes to desktop, Microsoft did anti-competitive shenanigans back in the day too and yet Mozilla managed to still get a significant marketshare despite that. Their secret at the time? Making an actually good browser that offered features the incumbent didn't have, something Mozilla has absolutely given up on in pursuit of making a Chrome lookalike, up to the point of removing certain features (that power users - their only marketshare at this point - very much miss) and even implementing arbitrary restrictions on the add-ons you can install on Android (you have to use a complex workaround to install unapproved ones). The thing is, people who want Chrome will just use the real thing and have no reason to use a slower lookalike with poor compatibility. Here's an easy idea to sell Firefox on the desktop to the masses: built-in uBlock Origin, out of the box. Nobody I know that has tried an ad blocker ever switched back, and if they do fall for a dark pattern and switch back to an alternative browser, ads will be a persistent reminder telling them to go back to Firefox. Actually give non-technical users a real, tangible reason to use Firefox.

admax88qqq 4y ago
Mozilla managed to do that because despite Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviour, the OS itself didn't restrict what code you could run on it. Apple has codified their anticompetitive behaviour into iOS
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Yes, I agree with that. However, the rest of my comment talks about the desktop where the situation hasn't changed much from decades ago - the incumbents use anti-competitive tactics, but people can still install alternative browsers and may do so if you give them a tangible reason to do so, but the hypothesis is hard to prove because Mozilla isn't actually interested in giving the masses a tangible reason to use its browser over the incumbents'.
  - echelon 4y ago
    Google pays for an order of magnitude more engineers for Chrome. This is the only reason they're ahead of Firefox. They're doing this from an artificial law-breaking economy they built. The same with Apple and their protectionist monopoly platform. Both companies deserve DOJ slaps. If you're a start-up founder, these companies are seeping you of the time and budget you need to succeed. They're unfairly sucking the air out of the economy for the rest of us.
    - Nextgrid 4y ago
      Let's assume we live in a perfect world where Firefox has 100% compatibility-parity with Chrome. Do you think Firefox would have a significant marketshare, and if so, why? I don't see what out-of-the-box Firefox brings to a non-technical user compared to Chrome. Yes, it can be made significantly better than Chrome with specific configuration and add-ons like uBlock Origin, but non-technical users aren't aware of that and will not try (and those who are already use Firefox).
      - hkt 4y ago
        What exactly does Firefox lack in this regard? I'm curious. I've used it for years and the only noticeable difference to me is that it doesn't nag me about having a Google account.
        Nextgrid 4y ago
        Well it's not really that it lacks, but that it also doesn't have any compelling features (for the average user) to switch either. When it comes to nagging, Firefox is unfortunately also quite bad, every major update it will find some bullshit to nag you about such as "colorways", Pocket or a VPN.
        endemic 4y ago
        I usually “sell” Firefox along with uBlock Origin. You’re correct that out of the box functionality for Firefox isn’t super compelling, but regular users notice the improved browsing experience that comes with the blocker.
- sixstringtheory 4y ago
  What Apple is doing is not anticompetitive because they own the platform. Microsoft was anticompetitive because they wound up dictating what OEMs could or could not do with the platform they built. Not the same situation.
  - stephc_int13 4y ago
    Yes, exactly the opposite of what you said.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    Your comment doesn't make sense. Apple "owns" the platform because... why, exactly? Because they build the software and the hardware? Or because you can only run software that they approve? The PC OEMs didn't "build" a platform, they licensed Windows from Microsoft and that license contained anti-competitive clauses. Apple's restrictions on iOS are also anti-competitive, regardless of the fact that they also built the hardware.
    - sixstringtheory 4y ago
      > Because they build the software and the hardware? Yes > Apple's restrictions on iOS are also anti-competitive Why, exactly? Should Subway be forced to allow McDonald's to sell Big Macs inside of each of their locations? That's competition, not anticompetitive.
      - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
        Should McDonald's be able to tell their franchisees that they can't sell Whoppers? That seems like the more apt comparison, and put like that it's hard to see why Microsoft would be in the wrong.
      - ColonelPhantom 4y ago
        The iOS situation is closer to Subway forbidding me from taking my food home and putting McDonald's sauce on it, even though I bought the damn sandwich.
- loudmax 4y ago
  In Microsoft's case, there is an entire world of software that only runs on Windows. There are a lot of circumstances where businesses and users simply don't have a choice to run an operating system other than Windows because so much of the software world is built around it. There software that runs only on macOS, but nowhere near the extent of Windows. The overwhelming majority of people using a Mac have made a decision to use an Apple product. For most Windows users, this was never a choice.
diegof79 4y ago
MS lost the trial about IE and had to include a UI to allow switching the default[1] (1998-2001). Firefox v1 launched 3 yrs after that trial[2] (2004). The idea that Firefox was able to get market share besides MS anti-competitive actions is incorrect. Firefox was better than IE in many areas, but the history will be different if users cannot switch the default browser. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_version_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_version_history
- scarface74 4y ago
  This never happened in the US.
AdmiralAsshat 4y ago
If Mozilla bundled uBO into Firefox, I imagine they would lose Google as a search partner overnight, and tens of millions of dollars in funding as a result.
ndiddy 4y ago
Google, an advertising company, pays for the vast majority of Firefox development in exchange for being the default search engine. Bundling an ad blocker with Firefox seems like a pretty bad idea in this situation.
- hkt 4y ago
  And yet, Firefox is an antitrust fig leaf for chrome. EU regulators won't take kindly to Google having an effective monopoly on web browsers, all the more so since MS adopted the same browser engine. If the choices became chrome or WebKit, said regulators would likely be at least curious enough to look.
opportune 4y ago
Look at where Firefox gets its funding and you’ll see why they might be reluctant to ship ad blocking on their flagship product. Firefox does have Firefox Focus on mobile with built in ad blocking/tracker blocking. I use it all the time yet I’m still not sure whether it allows “acceptable” ads due to general ad blindness, though I know it doesn’t block everything (which could just be due to lack of community reports for that ad type, or something).
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > Look at where Firefox gets its funding and you’ll see why they might be reluctant to ship ad blocking on their flagship product. Great, then it means it's time to actually build a profitable business, or at least own up to their conflict of interest instead of blaming everyone for their inability to run a business without relying on handouts.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    Seriously. It seems like the only "innovation" coming out of Mozilla these days involves finding new ways to complain about their marketshare dwindling that don't involve their browser being inferior to their major competitors in many ways.
  - therealmarv 4y ago
    Actually Brave solved that part. It has a working business model with its opt in ad users. Actually impressive they solved it.
    - fabrice_d 4y ago
      I like Brave a lot, but their business model is not providing enough revenue to build a full web runtime + browser either since they are a Chrome fork.
causi 4y ago
Microsoft did anti-competitive shenanigans back in the day too Did Microsoft do anything worse than bundling IE with Windows and integrating it into the file manager? Frankly Windows now is much worse than it was then, taking note of the hissy fit Windows 10/11 throws when you go to switch your default browser away from Edge.
twelvedogs 4y ago
> Microsoft did anti-competitive shenanigans back in the day too and yet Mozilla managed to still get a significant marketshare despite that pretty easy to do when the incumbent barely worked on their browser for 5 years because they had a monopoly. i would assume no one would be as dumb as balmer to choke out their own monopoly position to save a few bucks

admax88qqq 4y ago

Mozilla managed to do that because despite Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviour, the OS itself didn't restrict what code you could run on it. Apple has codified their anticompetitive behaviour into iOS

Nextgrid 4y ago
Yes, I agree with that. However, the rest of my comment talks about the desktop where the situation hasn't changed much from decades ago - the incumbents use anti-competitive tactics, but people can still install alternative browsers and may do so if you give them a tangible reason to do so, but the hypothesis is hard to prove because Mozilla isn't actually interested in giving the masses a tangible reason to use its browser over the incumbents'.
- echelon 4y ago
  Google pays for an order of magnitude more engineers for Chrome. This is the only reason they're ahead of Firefox. They're doing this from an artificial law-breaking economy they built. The same with Apple and their protectionist monopoly platform. Both companies deserve DOJ slaps. If you're a start-up founder, these companies are seeping you of the time and budget you need to succeed. They're unfairly sucking the air out of the economy for the rest of us.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Let's assume we live in a perfect world where Firefox has 100% compatibility-parity with Chrome. Do you think Firefox would have a significant marketshare, and if so, why? I don't see what out-of-the-box Firefox brings to a non-technical user compared to Chrome. Yes, it can be made significantly better than Chrome with specific configuration and add-ons like uBlock Origin, but non-technical users aren't aware of that and will not try (and those who are already use Firefox).
    - hkt 4y ago
      What exactly does Firefox lack in this regard? I'm curious. I've used it for years and the only noticeable difference to me is that it doesn't nag me about having a Google account.
      - Nextgrid 4y ago
        Well it's not really that it lacks, but that it also doesn't have any compelling features (for the average user) to switch either. When it comes to nagging, Firefox is unfortunately also quite bad, every major update it will find some bullshit to nag you about such as "colorways", Pocket or a VPN.
        endemic 4y ago
        I usually “sell” Firefox along with uBlock Origin. You’re correct that out of the box functionality for Firefox isn’t super compelling, but regular users notice the improved browsing experience that comes with the blocker.
sixstringtheory 4y ago
What Apple is doing is not anticompetitive because they own the platform. Microsoft was anticompetitive because they wound up dictating what OEMs could or could not do with the platform they built. Not the same situation.
- stephc_int13 4y ago
  Yes, exactly the opposite of what you said.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Your comment doesn't make sense. Apple "owns" the platform because... why, exactly? Because they build the software and the hardware? Or because you can only run software that they approve? The PC OEMs didn't "build" a platform, they licensed Windows from Microsoft and that license contained anti-competitive clauses. Apple's restrictions on iOS are also anti-competitive, regardless of the fact that they also built the hardware.
  - sixstringtheory 4y ago
    > Because they build the software and the hardware? Yes > Apple's restrictions on iOS are also anti-competitive Why, exactly? Should Subway be forced to allow McDonald's to sell Big Macs inside of each of their locations? That's competition, not anticompetitive.
    - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
      Should McDonald's be able to tell their franchisees that they can't sell Whoppers? That seems like the more apt comparison, and put like that it's hard to see why Microsoft would be in the wrong.
    - ColonelPhantom 4y ago
      The iOS situation is closer to Subway forbidding me from taking my food home and putting McDonald's sauce on it, even though I bought the damn sandwich.
loudmax 4y ago
In Microsoft's case, there is an entire world of software that only runs on Windows. There are a lot of circumstances where businesses and users simply don't have a choice to run an operating system other than Windows because so much of the software world is built around it. There software that runs only on macOS, but nowhere near the extent of Windows. The overwhelming majority of people using a Mac have made a decision to use an Apple product. For most Windows users, this was never a choice.

diegof79 4y ago

MS lost the trial about IE and had to include a UI to allow switching the default[1] (1998-2001). Firefox v1 launched 3 yrs after that trial[2] (2004). The idea that Firefox was able to get market share besides MS anti-competitive actions is incorrect. Firefox was better than IE in many areas, but the history will be different if users cannot switch the default browser. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_version_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_version_history

scarface74 4y ago
This never happened in the US.

AdmiralAsshat 4y ago

If Mozilla bundled uBO into Firefox, I imagine they would lose Google as a search partner overnight, and tens of millions of dollars in funding as a result.

ndiddy 4y ago

Google, an advertising company, pays for the vast majority of Firefox development in exchange for being the default search engine. Bundling an ad blocker with Firefox seems like a pretty bad idea in this situation.

hkt 4y ago
And yet, Firefox is an antitrust fig leaf for chrome. EU regulators won't take kindly to Google having an effective monopoly on web browsers, all the more so since MS adopted the same browser engine. If the choices became chrome or WebKit, said regulators would likely be at least curious enough to look.

opportune 4y ago

Look at where Firefox gets its funding and you’ll see why they might be reluctant to ship ad blocking on their flagship product. Firefox does have Firefox Focus on mobile with built in ad blocking/tracker blocking. I use it all the time yet I’m still not sure whether it allows “acceptable” ads due to general ad blindness, though I know it doesn’t block everything (which could just be due to lack of community reports for that ad type, or something).

Nextgrid 4y ago
> Look at where Firefox gets its funding and you’ll see why they might be reluctant to ship ad blocking on their flagship product. Great, then it means it's time to actually build a profitable business, or at least own up to their conflict of interest instead of blaming everyone for their inability to run a business without relying on handouts.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Seriously. It seems like the only "innovation" coming out of Mozilla these days involves finding new ways to complain about their marketshare dwindling that don't involve their browser being inferior to their major competitors in many ways.
- therealmarv 4y ago
  Actually Brave solved that part. It has a working business model with its opt in ad users. Actually impressive they solved it.
  - fabrice_d 4y ago
    I like Brave a lot, but their business model is not providing enough revenue to build a full web runtime + browser either since they are a Chrome fork.

causi 4y ago

Microsoft did anti-competitive shenanigans back in the day too Did Microsoft do anything worse than bundling IE with Windows and integrating it into the file manager? Frankly Windows now is much worse than it was then, taking note of the hissy fit Windows 10/11 throws when you go to switch your default browser away from Edge.

twelvedogs 4y ago

> Microsoft did anti-competitive shenanigans back in the day too and yet Mozilla managed to still get a significant marketshare despite that pretty easy to do when the incumbent barely worked on their browser for 5 years because they had a monopoly. i would assume no one would be as dumb as balmer to choke out their own monopoly position to save a few bucks